Iran v. United States

The Islamic Republic of Iran v. The United States of America, IUSCT Case Nos. A15(IV) and A24
Type of case:
Iran-US Claims
Date of introduction:
Unknown
Status of the case:
Concluded (non-ISDS case)
Claimant’s country of origin:
Iran
Respondent:
United States
Institution:
IUSCT (Iran-US Claims Tribunal)
Applicable treaties:
Algiers Declaration (1981...
Algiers Declaration (Clai...

Documents of the case

Source(s) of the information:
Reproduced with the permission of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal :
Link1 (EN) Official source

Lawyers, other representatives, expert(s), tribunal’s secretary

Decision (Decision No. DEC 136-A15(IV)/A24-FT)

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Award No. 602-A15(IV)/A24-FT

1.
On 2 July 2014, the Tribunal rendered Award No. 6021 ("Award No. 602") in Cases Nos. Al 5 (IV) and A24 (hereinafter referred to as "Case No. A15 (IV)" or "this Case"). At issue in that Award was a claim brought by the Islamic Republic of Iran ("Iran") for compensation from the United States of America ("United States") for losses that Iran alleged to have suffered as a result of the United States’ violation of its obligation under the Algiers Declarations2 to terminate litigation initiated by United States nationals against Iran in United States courts.
2.
In Award No. 602, the Tribunal upheld some of Iran’s claims and dismissed others. Among the claims it dismissed were thirteen claims for attorney expenses (the "Thirteen Claims") that the Tribunal found had already been settled through a 9 February 1996 settlement agreement between Iran and the United States ("Tribunal Settlement Agreement") (the Tribunal Settlement Agreement was subsequently recorded as a Partial Award on Agreed Terms, terminating, among others, Claim C in Case No. A15 (IV)).3 In the Thirteen Claims, Iran had sought litigation expenses it allegedly incurred in relation to thirteen United States court cases.4 In dismissing the Thirteen Claims, Award No. 602 held:

The language of the 9 February 1996 Tribunal Settlement Agreement is sweeping and unambiguous. Therein, Iran agreed, among other things, that, upon the Tribunal’s issuance of the Award on Agreed Terms, (i) it "[would] not... at any time thereafter... pursue arbitral... proceedings or otherwise make any claim... whatsoever against the United States... with respect to, arising out of, in connection with or relating to [Claim C in Case No. A15 (IV)]"; and (ii) it "[would] waive any and all claims for costs, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of or related in any way to the arbitration, prosecution or defense of any claim or counterclaim before any forum, including the Tribunal, with respect to, arising out of, in connection with or relating to [Claim C in Case No. A15 (IV)]."5

Thus, Award No. 602 dismissed the Thirteen Claims, holding that Iran had expressly waived them in the 9 February 1996 Tribunal Settlement.6

3.
As compensation for breaches by the United States of its obligations under General Principle B of the General Declaration and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Claims Settlement Declaration, in Award No. 602, the Tribunal awarded Iran, among other things, litigation expenses Iran incurred in litigating specific United States court cases ("specific litigation expenses") and expenses Iran incurred in monitoring claims pending against it in United States courts ("monitoring expenses").7 In Award No. 602, the Tribunal thoroughly explained the approach it took in determining the amounts of compensable expenses and the manner in which it chose to state the reasons upon which the Award was based, stating:

247. In determining the amounts of compensable expenses that are due and owing by the United States to Iran and, in this connection, in determining, inter alia, whether relevant appearances and filings were made and relevant monitoring activities were carried out, the Tribunal has carefully considered the Parties’ arguments, and it has performed an in-depth evaluation of the evidence presented, including the following:

a. copies of the invoices issued by the United States law firms representing Iran;

b. evidence of payment of invoices, including copies of checks, bank documents, correspondence between Iran and its United States attorneys, Iranian internal communications, and payment receipts;

c. copies of docket sheets for the relevant United States court cases; United States court decisions; filings and correspondence with United States courts; correspondence with and between attorneys; and

d. copies of United States Government statements of interest filed with United States courts.

248. Further, in making its determinations, the Tribunal has meticulously applied the criteria established in Partial Award No. 590 and in the present Award.

249. In application of its broad discretion to determine the length and detail of its awards, the Tribunal has deemed it inappropriate in the circumstances to relate, and therefore has not related, all the specifics of the Tribunal’s analysis of the 179 United States court legal proceedings at issue in these Cases and the thousands of associated documents. Specifically, the Tribunal has elected not to itemize, either in the body of the present Award or in appendices thereto, the individual expenses that it has concluded are compensable or not compensable, to set out the detailed reasons for their compensability vel non, to provide a line-by-line analysis of the many invoices for legal services it has found should be honored or to specify which items within such invoices should be honored and why (or, if not, why not), or to provide the details of its calculations. The Tribunal believes that, in the circumstances of these Cases, providing such a mass of detail would obscure the essential points of the Tribunal’s decision. In addition, the Tribunal does not believe that it is its duty to set out, in this Award, all the minutiae of its decision, given that the Parties themselves did not provide, in their pleadings, a comprehensive, detailed, line-by-line analysis of the invoices and payment documents on record but rather left it to the Tribunal to do so.

250. The Tribunal has elected, instead, to describe in detail the legal rationale for its conclusions on compensability and to specify the aggregates of the expenses it has deemed to be compensable and the evidence it has relied on in making its determinations. In addition, while the Tribunal believes, as a general matter, that it should avoid attaching documents to its awards, it has nevertheless attached three concise Annexes to this Award, listing: (i) the legal proceedings involving claims arguably falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or involving claims that had been fded with the Tribunal in which Iran was reasonably compelled in the prudent defense of its interests to make appearances or file documents after 19 July 1981 [Annex A]; (ii) the lawsuits filed against Iran in United States courts after 19 January 1981 that involved claims arguably falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or claims that had been filed with the Tribunal [Annex B]; and (iii) Claim A cases with respect to which Iran has proven that it has incurred specific litigation expenses [Annex C8.

[...]

252. While Article 32, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal Rules provides that the Tribunal "shall state the reasons upon which the award is based," it does not prescribe the manner in which the Tribunal must state such reasons.9 In this regard, the Tribunal echoes the view expressed by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion in Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal:

[The statement of reasons] must indicate in a general way the reasoning upon which the judgment is based; but it need not enter meticulously into every claim and contention on either side. While a judicial organ is obliged to pass upon all the formal submissions made by a party, it is not obliged, in framing its judgment, to develop its reasoning in the form of a detailed examination of each of the various heads of claim submitted. Nor are there any obligatory forms or techniques for drawing up judgments: a tribunal may employ direct or indirect reasoning, and state specific or merely implied conclusions, provided that the reasons on which the judgment is based are apparent.10

253. The European Court of Human Rights, for its part, in assessing the fairness of national court proceedings in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights, has held that "Article 6 § 1 obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument [; the] extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision."11

254. The present Award, in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of these Cases, adequately addresses the essential issues that the Parties submitted to it, identifies the factual and legal premises upon which the Tribunal based its conclusions, and presents the rationale for the Tribunal’s decision.12

B. The United States Request for Correction to the Award and Additional Award

4.
By submission of 1 August 2014, the United States requested that (1) the Tribunal correct Award No. 602 pursuant to Article 36 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure ("Request for Correction") and (2) the Tribunal issue an additional award pursuant to Article 37 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure ("Request for Additional Award").
5.
On 8 September 2014, Iran submitted its comments on the United States’ Request for Correction and Additional Award ("Iran’s Comments").
6.
On 3 October 2014, the United States submitted its response to Iran’s Comments ("United States Response").
7.
On 28 October 2014, Iran submitted its comments on the United States Response.

II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Request for Correction

1. The United States

8.
The United States points outs that Award No. 602 erroneously awarded Iran specific litigation expenses with respect to three of the Thirteen Claims that Award No. 602, in paragraph 176, had dismissed in toto as having been waived by Iran in the 9 February 1996 Tribunal Settlement Agreement.13
9.
Specifically, the United States indicates that, at paragraph 195, Award No. 602 states that it has awarded Iran specific litigation expenses for each of the United States court cases listed in Annex C; Annex C, however, includes two of the thirteen United States court cases with respect to which Iran had sought damages in two of the Thirteen Claims dismissed by Award No. 602 -namely, Itek Corp. v. Iran et al., 79-2383-MA (D. Mass.) ("ltek") and Watkins-Johnson Co. v. Iran et al., 79-3963 (N.D. Cal.) ("Watkins-Johnson"). The United States further points out that paragraph 196 of the Award indicates that Iran was awarded specific litigation expenses for each of the United States court cases listed in footnote No. 197; footnote No. 197 of Award No. 602, however, includes one of the thirteen United States court cases with respect to which Iran had sought damages in one of the Thirteen Claims dismissed by Award No. 602 - that is, Aeronutronic Overseas Services, Inc. et al. v. Telecommunication Co. of Iran, C-82-6910 (N.D. Cal.) ("Aeronutronic").
10.
The United States asserts that Award No. 602’s granting Iran litigation expenses with respect to those three United States court cases is contrary to the holding in paragraph 176 of the same Award dismissing the Thirteen Claims and appears to have been made in error. Consequently, the United States contends, Award No. 602 should be corrected pursuant to Article 36 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure ("Tribunal Rules") to remove from the damages awarded Iran the amounts awarded as specific litigation expenses related to Itek, Watkins-Johnson, and Aeronutronic; similarly, Award No. 602 should be corrected to remove from those damages any monitoring expenses that were allocated for these three United States court cases.

2. Iran

11.
Iran contends that the United States has failed to establish the prerequisites of Article 36 of the Tribunal Rules for the correction of an award as interpreted and applied by the Tribunal. According to Iran, the United States Request for Correction does not point to any computational, clerical, typographical, or similar errors in Award No. 602; rather, it alleges an inconsistency between two holdings of the Tribunal with respect to Iran’s claims for specific litigation expenses relating to Itek, Watkins-Johnson, and Aeronutronic. Iran asserts that the Tribunal has only granted requests for correction to rectify faulty mathematical calculations and typographical errors, and that, in the Tribunal’s practice, errors of a similar nature, also correctable, may consist of a misspelled party’s name, inaccurate dates, or mistranslations; the Tribunal, however, has not applied Article 36 of the Tribunal Rules to grant requests for correction arising from any types of internal inconsistency errors and similar mistakes in the awards.

B. Request for Additional Award

1. The United States

12.
The United States asserts that the Tribunal, in Award No. 602, did not provide a reasoned decision for each of the 179 claims presented by Iran, as required by Article 32, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal Rules, but limited itself to explaining its legal reasoning generally. Accordingly, the United States requests an additional award pursuant to Article 37 of the Tribunal Rules, providing (i) a short description of the Tribunal’s reasoning for each of the 179 claims and (ii) indicating the amount of any specific damages Award No. 602 has awarded for a particular claim.
13.
The United States contends that, without the additional award it requests, the United States would be prevented from further exercising its rights under Article 36 of the Tribunal Rules to request a correction of Award No. 602; this is because it cannot check the Tribunal’s calculations for errors in computation, compare the awarded amount to the legal bills proffered by Iran, or check for internal inconsistencies in the Award.

2. Iran

14.
Iran contends that the purpose of Article 37 of the Tribunal Rules is to authorize the Tribunal to "cover obvious omitted claims and nothing more"; the United States, however, has not pointed to any claims presented to the Tribunal but omitted from Award No. 602.
15.
According to Iran, the United States Request for Additional award is, in essence, a request for revision that falls beyond the scope of Article 37; consequently, it should be dismissed.

III. REQUEST FOR CORRECTION TO AWARD NO. 602-Al 5(IV)/A24-FT

16.
Pursuant to Article 36 of the Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal may correct "any errors in computation, any clerical or typographical errors, or any errors of similar nature."
17.
The Tribunal acknowledges that, in Award No. 602, the Tribunal has unintentionally allocated compensable specific litigation expenses and "further monitoring expenses" in respect of claims that were the subject of the 9 February 1996 settlement agreement between Iran and the United States.14 An error in computation has arisen as a result of this mistake that must be corrected pursuant to Article 36 of the Tribunal Rules.
18.
Two of the three United States court cases that Award No. 602 mistakenly included among those giving rise to compensable expenses15 increased the Tribunal’s award of specific litigation expenses by U.S.$1,040.62 and the Tribunal’s award of "further monitoring expenses" by U.S.$661.46.16 Interest awarded on these amounts totaled U.S.$3,430.16. Accordingly, the following corrections are made to Award No. 602, and copies of the corrected pages of the Award and Annex C to the Award are attached.

(1) Annex C

Entry No. 24 "Itek Corp. v. Iran et al., 79-2383-MA (D. Mass.)" and entry No. 42 "Watkins-Johnson Co. et al. v. Iran et al., 79-3963 (N.D. Cal.)" are deleted.

(2) Footnote No. 197, page 72

In the first two lines, the words "Aeronutronic Overseas Services, Inc. et al. v. Telecommunication Co. of Iran, C-82-6910 (N.D. Cal.)" are deleted.

(3) Paragraph 195

In the second line, the figure "44" is replaced by the figure "42."

In the third line, the amount "U.S.$70,144.39" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$69,573.39."

(4) Paragraph 196

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$56,070.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$55,600.70."

In the fourth line, the word "nine" is replaced by the word "eight."

(5) Paragraph 289

In the Table, fifth row, second column, the amount "5,527.37" is replaced by the amount "5,057.75."

In the Table, fifth row, fourth column, the amount "U.S.$10,827.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$9,907.40."

In the Table, sixth row, second column, the amount "7,579.85" is replaced by the amount "7,008.85."

In the Table, sixth row, fourth column, the amount "14,155.79" is replaced by the amount "13,089.42."

In the Table, fourteenth row, second column, the amount "133,367.05" is replaced by the amount "132,326.43."

In the Table, fourteenth row, fourth column, the amount "256,707.34" is replaced by the amount "254,721.05."

(6) Paragraph 290, page 106

In the first line, the amount "U.S.$7,456.60" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$6,795.14."

In the Table, third row, first column, the amount "7,456.60" is replaced by the amount "6,795.14."

In the Table, third row, third column, the amount "16,276.68" is replaced by the amount "14,832.81."

In the Table, fifth row, the amount "84,794.72" is replaced by the amount "84,133.26."

In the Table, fifth row, the amount "194,068.62" is replaced by the amount "192,624.75."

(7) Paragraph 292

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$574,306.37" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$570,876.21."

(8) Paragraph 293

In the first line, the amount "U.S.$842,468.14" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$837,335.90."

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$268,161.77" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$266,459.69.".

In the third line, the amount "U.S.$574,306.37" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$570,876.21."

In the fifth line, the amount "U.S.$842,468.14" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$837,335.90."

(9) Paragraph 294 (a)

In the ninth line, the figure "44" is replaced by the figure "42."

In the tenth line, the amount "U.S.$70,144.39" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$69,573.39."

(10) Paragraph 294 (b)

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$56,070.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$55,600.70."

In the fourth line, the word "nine" is replaced by the word "eight."

In the seventh line, the amount "U.S.$56,070.32" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$55,600.70."

(11) Paragraph 294 (e)

In the sixth line, the amount "U.S.$7,456.60" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$6,795.14."

(12) Paragraph 294 (h)

In the second line, the amount "U.S.$574,306.37" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$570,876.21."

(13) Paragraph 294 (i)

In the third and fourth lines, the words "Eight Hundred Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Eight United States Dollars and Fourteen Cents" are replaced by the words "Eight Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Five United States Dollars and Ninety Cents."

In the fourth line, the amount "U.S.$842,468.14" is replaced by the amount "U.S.$837,335.90."

IV. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AWARD

19.
Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal Rules provides that, "[w]ithin thirty days after the receipt of the award, either party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to make an additional award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the award."
20.
The United States Request for Additional Award does not contend that the Tribunal has omitted from Award No. 602 any part of the claims Iran presented in these Cases. Rather, the Request is premised on the contention that the Tribunal, in the Award, did not provide a reasoned decision for each of the 179 claims presented by Iran but instead limited itself to explaining its legal reasoning generally.17
21.
Because it points to no omitted claims, the Request for Additional Award, on its face, does not fall within the scope of Article 37 of the Tribunal Rules. Moreover, the issue raised in that Request has been thoroughly aired in Section III.B.4 (g) of Award No. 602,18 where the Tribunal explained in great detail precisely why it had decided not to relate "all the specifics of the Tribunal’s analysis of the 179 United States court legal proceedings at issue in these Cases and the thousands of associated documents,"19 but rather only to "describe in detail the legal rationale for its conclusions on compensability and to specify the aggregates of the expenses it has deemed to be compensable and the evidence it has relied on in making its determinations."20 The Request for Additional Award, in effect, asks that the Tribunal reconsider this decision. Tribunal precedent, however, is clear:

Insofar as the Request constitutes an attempt... to reargue certain aspects of the Case and to disagree with the conclusions of the Tribunal in its... Award, there is no basis in the Tribunal’s Rules of procedure or elsewhere for review of an Award on such grounds.21

22.
Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal concludes that no claims were omitted from Award No. 602. Accordingly, the United States Request for Additional Award is denied.
Whole document
para.
Click on the text to select an element Click elsewhere to unselect an element
Select a key word :
1 /

Instantly access the most relevant case law, treaties and doctrine.

Start your Free Trial

Already registered ?